No Keystone honeymoons, folks

Gay couples tying the knot in New York will find that the specific rights granted by that marriage end south of the Pennsylvania state line, thanks to the commonwealth’s so-called “Defense of Marriage” law.

Funk and Wagnall’s definition of “Marriage”.
“A legal contract entered into by a man and a woman, to live together as husband and wife.”

Merriam-Webster definition(on-line)
1.”: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.”
2.”: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage .

If the union of two people, agreeing to live together as “person and person ” makes each of them happy, so be it. It’s none of my business.
I suspect that the real reason for objecting to a same-sex union being called a marriage is economic in nature. i.e.
“Tax laws(Filing jointly)”.
“Spousal insurance coverage”.
“Retirement benefits.” etc. etc.
I’m well aware of the Biblical implications.
I’m also well aware of a saying by GBS–
““No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means”.

Jim Evans

I read earlier today about an Ohio same sex couple who jointly had a child – one of the lesbian mothers was artificially inseminated – and raised the daughter together. Seems the child called one “Mommy” and the other “Momma”. But then they split up and, just as with heterosexual couples, fought over custody. The birth mom wanted full custody with limited visitation; the other wanted equal custody. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, the child, having bonded with both, would be best served by having equal access to both of the parents. In one heart-wrenching recording that the non-birth mom made, the little girl says “Mommy says don’t call momma ‘momma’… mommy says ‘momma’s not momma, momma’s Michele’ but I say ‘no mommy, she’s momma.’”

What’s this have to do with the toon? Not much, I guess, other than to hearken back to an earlier Cole cartoon, in which the people celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage included gay couples, lesbian couples – and divorce lawyers. When same-sex marriage is recognized by the State, those same couples who are thrilled to be legally united in marriage may find that, should things not work out, they are treated just as horrendously in family court as are straight married couples.

Bill (AshburnStadium)

The 14th Amendment reads in part, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

I believe that means that if something is legal in one state, then it has to be legal in all states. Why deny something that is allowed to a certain population to another segment of the population?

The arguments that are being used today against gay marriage are the SAME EXACT ones that were used 50 years ago against interracial marriage. Miscegenation was a felony in Virginia until the Supreme Court struck that law down in Loving vs. Virginia in 1967. It was punishable by a state prison term of one to five years.

Paul Chrastina

Sorry Bill (Ashburn). “If something is legal in one state, then it has to be legal in all states”, is incorrect.
Each state may pass any law it wishes to, providing it does not violate the Constitution of the U.S.